Jump to content
270soft Forum

Feature You'd Most Like to See


Recommended Posts

Hi Monty,

We'll see - request noted.

Any chance of including a PBEM mode? All it would mean is picking more than one human player and instead of going immediately to the next candidate after clicking end turn you would see a blank screen with a prompt for the next player to continue. A password prompt would also be nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's a pretty cool idea! It would be fun connecting with other campaigners for a game.

Certainly, but it is important to make sure the candidates all have reasonable shot at the money... at least some shot... Romney should have the edge...but it shouldn't be impossible for other candida

Good idea! Maybe you could also throw in Vice Presidential Interviews... you how much damage those did to Sarah Palin in 2008... I'd also like to see some ads on the Veeps. I know the McCain campaig

Posted Images

  • 2 months later...

I'm wondering whether there's any thought of doing the thing that some of us have been asking for, namely allowing for multiple different electoral systems like popular vote, top-two runoff, etc., in the P4E2012 game engine. It would seriously expand the horizons of what kinds of scenarios it would be possible to create well.

Another thought I just had is that, particularly at the down-ballot level, lots of primaries have a runoff system where if no one gets a majority you have a top-two runoff a week or two later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe - right now, the focus is on the U.S. system. It might happen in the future.

I'm wondering whether there's any thought of doing the thing that some of us have been asking for, namely allowing for multiple different electoral systems like popular vote, top-two runoff, etc., in the P4E2012 game engine. It would seriously expand the horizons of what kinds of scenarios it would be possible to create well.

Another thought I just had is that, particularly at the down-ballot level, lots of primaries have a runoff system where if no one gets a majority you have a top-two runoff a week or two later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a career mode.

What this means to me is I pick a candidate, run for President. Chances are, I don't get the nomination, but then I can work an try and get my party's nominee elected. If he is, then I get a bit of a bump to my own status, be it integrity, organiziation, whatever. Then in 4 or 8 more years depending (or I guess give me the ability to run against an incumbant in the primaries), my candidate is a better candidate from running previously. Hopefully I am better enough to win. Then face re-election.

Not sure how implementing the actual Presidency could work without turning this into a game it is not mean to be, but I would love the ability to grow my candidate over several elections until I finally become the top guy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Cras for the suggestion - I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but it's an interesting idea.

a career mode.

What this means to me is I pick a candidate, run for President. Chances are, I don't get the nomination, but then I can work an try and get my party's nominee elected. If he is, then I get a bit of a bump to my own status, be it integrity, organiziation, whatever. Then in 4 or 8 more years depending (or I guess give me the ability to run against an incumbant in the primaries), my candidate is a better candidate from running previously. Hopefully I am better enough to win. Then face re-election.

Not sure how implementing the actual Presidency could work without turning this into a game it is not mean to be, but I would love the ability to grow my candidate over several elections until I finally become the top guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

1 - more granular polls with internal demographics. IE men/women, White/Latino/Black/Other, Evangelical, College Students, Young/Old.

Also make the demographics national, but affect states different (IE if my national message is Right on immigration, this affects me in all states with a Latino population, obviously more in states with larger population than others)

2. more options going into the Debates, like a mini game. Not just attack/defences but things such as "swing for fences" vs "just try not to flub up" or maybe an option to "challenge the refs" IE attack the media like Gingrich did. or "clinch" like Romney did staying close to Obama in the last, foreign policy debate. Also option to not show up to debates (at least in primary).

3. You need to add Joe Biden as a candidate for 2016

Link to post
Share on other sites

For President Forever 2012/2016: recount option and perhaps a feature that shows a coat-tail effect of the winning party. For instance showing who won in seats in congress state to state depending on how well you did. Also, more detailed state map with counties. It would go along with the recount feature. It would be more advance but would add a lot more realism to the game. Especially for us political junkies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

I'd love to see the platforms talk to each other to allow for full-party play. For instance --

Let's say I'm playing Barack Obama in President Forever 2012. I win by a huge margin -- 55 percent of the popular, over 400 electoral votes -- winning swing states like FL and NC by healthy margins and even turning red states like AZ, GA, and IN blue.

That sort of top-of-the-ticket landslide should create a Congress 2012 alternate scenario -- giving Dems boosts in House and Senate races where Obama character dominated or built a major footsoldier infrastructure to win.

I'd also like to see continued-scenario play -- i.e. winning as Romney-Ryan in 2012 allows you start 2016 as the incumbent, with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with being the incumbent in that scenario.

I'd also generally like to see much more from Congress 2012, including longer game-play to allow for potential party committee investment in primary races (as mentioned before), mutli-scenario game-play (i.e. winning 218-plus House seats in 2010 scenario should allow you start as the majority party in 2012, which could offer a fundraising or infrastructure bonus), more scenarios (Senate 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008...), and much more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For President Forever 2012/2016: recount option and perhaps a feature that shows a coat-tail effect of the winning party. For instance showing who won in seats in congress state to state depending on how well you did. Also, more detailed state map with counties. It would go along with the recount feature. It would be more advance but would add a lot more realism to the game. Especially for us political junkies.

I'm frankly sick of hearing counties, counties, counties! Counties should only be in gubernatorial and single-state Senatorial scenarios, where they replace the states as political regions. As a scenario designer, I'm telling you that if counties became a part of federal scenarios, they're such a nightmare from a game design perspective that fanmade scenarios would grind to a total halt!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'd also like to see continued-scenario play -- i.e. winning as
Romney-Ryan in 2012 allows you start 2016 as the incumbent, with all the
advantages and disadvantages that come with being the incumbent in that
scenario."

This is an interesting idea - one that might become more of a bonus once more scenarios are added to P4E16. You can imagine starting in 1980 (or whenever), and then influencing each subsequent election, playing right into 2016, changing the course of history.. We'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I don't think counties would be a good idea as one county isn't necessarily one electoral vote. There's also the fact that clicking on small states is a bit tricky as it is without adding small counties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Alright, so these are my quibbles regarding President Forever - 2016:

  1. I have to agree Barnission and make a mention for inclusion of the prediction tool. By itself I have to admit it isn't that significant, but it does help formulate a strategy in a very basic format without going from state to state. It is not all that important, but it was one of those tools I used at least once every game.
  2. Attack Ads need to be given a larger radius; they should be able "backfire" without actually backfiring. To explain............say you are the Democratic candidate and your Economic theme, and therefore your advertisements, are aimed at the Left position. This is ideal in typical areas that are on that position are leaning to the Left, and any ads should work. However, were you to run the ads or campaign on the issue in Mississippi for example, you should be apt to lose support/momentum, even going into the negative. This would fix two issues:
    1. There would no longer be any "National Ad Campaigns" as I see often mentioned by players; I admit I have done them myself. It will force players to target certain ads at certain regions or states, while forcing them to pay attention to other political issues that might give them advantages in those states. Centrist candidates would likely not be heavily affected, but at the same time, they don't have a "safe" region to draw support that isn't going to be constantly contested.
    2. No ad will "eventually" work in every region. The lowest an issue ever goes is a zero benefit on the momentum scale, at least when related to the actions of your own campaign, and the lowest effect of ads is zero. The only problem with this is that at some point, for example the Left economic position, you might be able to get ads that really shouldn't work in Right-Leaning states, with low but still significant numbers (around two, three). True, you should be able to develop an issue in such a way that it might no longer damage your campaign in those areas, but for positions that are beyond Centre-Left or Centre-Right, they should not have much, if any, draw in those states that are at the Right or Left ends of the spectrum on that particular issue.
  3. Have the CPs pursue ballot access; currently they do not do so.
    1. On a similar note, dates to which the ability to seek ballot access closes; some states close much earlier than others, and you can't get on the ballot past that point, though in the game you still would be able too. I'm not sure how the AI would handle it (specifically minors as detailed below), but then again, in the case of the Major Two, they shouldn't have to ever worry about a single state, and their candidates maybe one or two at best unless you start counting near the 1% level.
  4. Add more flavor to the scandals; don't really care how (though my aim is towards being more humorous in this regard) but I would just like something other than (SCANDAL) showing up every time it happens. Money Laundering, Theft, Working Women, could be anything depending on the severity, just something other than the bland "Candidate-Scandal". ^_^
  5. Minor Parties (The Big Three [Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and maybe an Independent]). For added difficulty, the ability to spacebar for testers, and additional game flavour. Don't require much either given you really only need to create one character which I could help with, the party which should be even easier, and then done. They shouldn't need all that much testing for their few purposes, though they might function best if combined with the AI actually pursuing ballot access; Given minor parties often need to spend much of their time and money on ballot access, and they have few resources as it is, it would reflect the OTL situation nicely, while also preventing any real possibility of the candidates managing to "break-out" without the mind of a human player.
    1. The only anomaly I can think of here is the Libertarians, given they now have guaranteed, I think, ballot access in 30 states for 2016 in addition to D.C. That still leaves them with a lot of work, but at the same time, that is much less to accomplish for a minor party than is normally required. Then again, it might do better in 2016 than we expect anyhow given that same benefit. Can't be sure.

So those are my thoughts. Well, besides maybe the scenario editor/creator, but that will happen when it happens. ;)

,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a Working Women scandal might lead to say a headline like "Michelle Bachmann Caught With Working Woman". :lol: I think that particular idea needs to be developed a bit more... I also disagree about the minor parties. I remember in Prime Minister Forever British 2010 they'd just take up space with not enough money or support or a high enough established rating (all campaign stats rolled into one, one reason why I much prefer P4E16) to do anything really, they'd just stay on the support they'd have at the start of the scenario though they made 2010 extra impossible for Gordon Brown. Those other ideas sound great though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a Working Women scandal might lead to say a headline like "Michelle Bachmann Caught With Working Woman". :lol: I think that particular idea needs to be developed a bit more... I also disagree about the minor parties. I remember in Prime Minister Forever British 2010 they'd just take up space with not enough money or support or a high enough established rating (all campaign stats rolled into one, one reason why I much prefer P4E16) to do anything really, they'd just stay on the support they'd have at the start of the scenario though they made 2010 extra impossible for Gordon Brown. Those other ideas sound great though.

I love having Minor Parties, though to be honest I have no idea how they would even react to this engine, with no way to test it. Presumably it would be far easier to fine tune it so that they work to this system than they did in P4E08, given we have more variety in that regard, but again, currently no way to test that theory. Their support should also be REALLY soft, which I don't believe is actually often done; makes the voters far easier to peel away. I at least always made sure that was the case.

And again, the working woman thing was just a throw-out; I'm just asking for some more variety there. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

@Lahbas,

Thanks for this feedback - the point about ballot access and CPs noted in particular. With the latest test release, we've added the first 3rd party to the 2016 scenario.

Your welcome. Only wish to help where I can.

Another note regarding third parties before I go on a more important tangent.............they are raising to many funds at the current stage. I had planned to lower the base fundraising # (forget what it was called) to about half that of the major parties, but it isn't actually there, at least not yet. I don't wish to cut them off completely from funding, but Johnson did only raise about $2.4 million during his entire campaign, and in this game he can quite easily fly by that without a player at the helm. Just something to keep in mind.

Also was curious as to how one would go about adding parties; specifically I was hoping to create a "Test Party" so that I could view the scenarios as run purely by computers, to see if there were any other anomalies I would miss otherwise.

Web Ads need to be made more expensive, rather than their base cost of $1,000. I'm not certain exactly what the real costs are for such campaign advertising, but at the present in the game, I find them a little too powerful, too much bang for the buck. The only negative regarding their usage is that they can eat up a large portion of your campaigns command points, but once you get momentum coming in from the ads this isn't really felt either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

More third parties would be nice, was disappointed to see the Green and Justice party missing. Even more confused to see that Wayne Allen Root was listed as the Libertarian for some reason... it should be Gary Johnson. The Constitution party also should have Virgil Goode... instead it lists Charles Baldwin.

1980. 1992, 1968, 1960, and 1948 would be interesting... namely 1968. I forgot for the moment which are already in the official game since mine has a number of user-made campagins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lahbas,

Thanks for the feedback re: 3rd party fundraising - noted.

You can create a new party with the Campaign Editor. Just click 'Parties' > 'New'.

Well, this was back in June, so I understand the system better now. :)

However third party organization has to be taken into account too before finances are; currently the candidates run out of cash fast, and that is because they begin with an organization of one in each state, which is around, if I remember correctly, $150,000 a day. Without that they would be fine in their current state; bringing them to the levels I suggested, if the organization were to remain as is, would be catastrophic, leaving them without any funding whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...